San Francisco Criminal Lawyer BlogCutting the gate hasp and lock on a truck constitutes entry into the locked vehicle.
People v. Gray (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 12, 2025, No. C099048) 2025 WL 783249, at *1
Facts: A jury found Gray guilty of second degree burglary of a vehicle, attempted second degree burglary of a vehicle, conspiracy to commit theft, vandalism, and possession of burglar’s tools. The trial court sentenced Gray to an aggregate term of five years four months. On appeal, Gray argues there was insufficient evidence to convict him of second degree burglary of a vehicle and attempted second degree burglary of a vehicle. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
An amended information charged Gray with second degree burglary of a vehicle (Pen. Code,1 § 459; count one), grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a); count two), attempted second degree burglary of a vehicle (§§ 459, 664, subd. (a); count three), conspiracy to commit the crime of theft (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 484, subd. (a); count four), vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(2)(A); count five), and possession of burglar’s tools (§ 466; count six). The trial court declared a mistrial on count two and a jury found Gray guilty of all remaining counts.
On appeal, Gray argues the jury lacked substantial evidence to find him guilty of burglary of a vehicle (count one) and attempted burglary of a vehicle (count three) in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gray argued that because he removed the locks on the outside of improvised barriers of both trucks, he did not enter the interior of either truck within the meaning of section 459. The People respond that the locked, enclosed cargo areas of the trucks fall within the scope of section 459.
Statutory interpretation of PC 459
“The proper interpretation of a statute is a question of law we review de novo.” (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal. 5th 952, 961, 281 Cal.Rptr.3d 521, 491 P.3d 309.) “ ‘ “ ‘As in any case involving statutory interpretation, our fundamental task here is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose. [Citation.] We begin by examining the statute’s words, giving them a plain and commonsense meaning.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Gonzalez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1138, 1141, 218 Cal.Rptr.3d 150, 394 P.3d 1074.) “
Section 459 provides in pertinent part: “Every person who enters any … vehicle as defined by the Vehicle Code, when the doors are locked, … with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary.” Gray does not dispute that the truck doors were locked or that he intended to commit a felony. Gray disputes whether cutting a gate hasp and lock on the exterior truck compartment and cutting a padlock on bins attached to a truck fall within the meaning of “entering the vehicle” for purposes of section 459. Gray argues that there is no burglary when a defendant enters into and extracts from an exterior space upon which the owner of the vehicle has affixed a lock because the exterior compartments are not directly or mechanically connected to the interior of the trucks, so entry into those compartments cannot constitute burglary.
“We must use a liberal and commonsense approach to ascertain if a particular act constitutes a vehicle burglary within the confines of … section 459.” (People v. Allen (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 909, 915, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 626.) “This criminal statute is to be construed flexibly in light of the legislative objective to make it more serious to break into the interior sections of locked cars than merely stealing from them.” (Id. at p. 916, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 626.) When determining whether a defendant has entered a locked vehicle within the meaning of section 459, “courts focus on … whether the securing devices, or parts of the vehicle, are broken or destroyed, such as when a window is smashed.” (Allen, at p. 915, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 626.) It is also relevant whether the victim had a “reasonable belief that the belongings were secure” or whether the defendant entered a compartment the victim “knew was openly accessible to the world.” (Id. at p. 917, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 626.)
No distinction between exterior and interior of a truck under PC 459
Gray attempts to draw a distinction between the exterior and the interior of the trucks, Toomes considered the trunk or luggage compartment as the interior of the car. (Toomes, supra, 148 Cal.App.2d at pp. 466-467, 306 P.2d 953.) Gray used tools to forcefully break the locks on the utility trucks’ storage compartments and bins that functioned analogously to the trunk of a car. Gray entered the enclosed cargo area of the truck by breaking the lock on the gate hasp, which pinned the side-by-side doors into the tailgate and was welded directly into the truck. The lock securing the doors on the rear of the truck gave the owner. the reasonable belief that the things of value he stored in the enclosed cargo area of the truck were secure and not openly accessible to the world. The bins that formed the actual sides of the utility truck functioned like a trunk of a car. The bins were locked for the very reason that they furnished a convenient place for the carrying of things of value. The locks gave the owner the reasonable belief that items of value he stored within would be secure. Attempting to gain access to the interior of the bins, Gray used a tool to break the lock securing all the bins. This is no different than the defendants in Toomes who used a tool to access the interior of the locked trunk of a car.
The plain language of section 459 and the legislative intent is to treat entry into a locked vehicle more harshly than simple theft. Gray’s act of cutting the gate hasp and lock on a truck constitutes entry into the locked vehicle. Also, by cutting the lock to the bar running across the bins on another truck, Gray attempted to enter the interior of a locked vehicle. Because Gray does not dispute any other aspect of the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions, his due process claim fails.
The judgment is affirmed.
The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.